If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Austin Rivers with a PER below 7

Ok, so I have seen improvements from Rivers and I understand that he is young and was hopeful he will turn into a quality player for us down the road. I know the hornets247 podcast guys Ryan Schwan and especially Michael McNamara have seen encouraging signs from him.

But I looked at a thread on realgm mentioning his low PER and of course everyone agreed that he is a bust and it was a mistake. But this got me to thinking has anyone with this low of a PER playing at least a good amount of minutes his rookie season ever turn into a quality player?? This has me concerned, because I didn't realize he was statistically THIS bad. I looked up Bledsoe because I remember he had a poor rookie season, yet his PER was a little above 10. It is hard to be optimistic unless I come up with similar success stories. Please share any that you know of and feel free to discuss.

Terrance Ross has a PER of 10.36 and Beal has a PER of 11.72. Not great but respectable for rookies in my opinion. Below 7 is ridiculous in my opinion.

Not really concerned about that. I trust my eyes. PER doesn't care that he's shown the skills to get to the basket, even though he's missed the layups. It just shows he's shooting a low percentage. Plus he shoots abysmally from the FT line.

First of all, the season is not over yet, and Rivers PER has practically doubled over the past three weeks, so it is possible that it continues to rise and finishes in double digits

Secondly, several great players have finished their rookie years with PER's under 11, like Steve Nash. Parker finished at 11.7, Baron Davis, Deron Williams, Mike Conley in the 12's.

It won't take much to get him into that range. The big problem with him right now with regard to his PER being so low is that it is heavily weighted on usage rate. Rivers is getting a ton of minutes, but Vasquez controls the ball and Ryno is the 2nd option, Davis and Lopez three and four, etc. His usage rate should skyrocket if he comes off the bench and runs the show on that unit. Once his usage rategoes up, the PER goes way up.

But use the eye test above all. Does he have skills that translate? Is he ahead of most guys 18 months removed from high school? Does he have killer work ethic.

The PER will go up, don't worry about that. If it is still hovering at 10-12 this time next year, then we have something to worry about

Austin Rivers with a PER below 7

I'm with Eman, in instances like this you've got to trust your eyes and instincts over the stats. He is young but very well composed and has a mindset to continually better himself. Now if this was his 2nd maybe even third season and he is still ineffective, then we have a problem.

First of all, the season is not over yet, and Rivers PER has practically doubled over the past three weeks, so it is possible that it continues to rise and finishes in double digits

Secondly, several great players have finished their rookie years with PER's under 11, like Steve Nash. Parker finished at 11.7, Baron Davis, Deron Williams, Mike Conley in the 12's.

It won't take much to get him into that range. The big problem with him right now with regard to his PER being so low is that it is heavily weighted on usage rate. Rivers is getting a ton of minutes, but Vasquez controls the ball and Ryno is the 2nd option, Davis and Lopez three and four, etc. His usage rate should skyrocket if he comes off the bench and runs the show on that unit. Once his usage rategoes up, the PER goes way up.

But use the eye test above all. Does he have skills that translate? Is he ahead of most guys 18 months removed from high school? Does he have killer work ethic.

The PER will go up, don't worry about that. If it is still hovering at 10-12 this time next year, then we have something to worry about

I think he will improve like Tony Parker did. The kid doesn't know how to not work. He will be a good player if anything, but i believe he will be great!

I've noticed that ths board picks and chooses when to use the eye test vs. stats. When is It I ok to use the eye test and when is it ok to use stats? I'm being serious when I ask this. When we compare Rivers to other rookies, I see people pulling stats out of the wazoo to prove that Rivers isn't as bad as he looks. But in this thread, it's don't worry about his stats just use the eye test. I don't get it. My take is that Rivers fails both in my opinion.

It's pretty much two sides of the same coin really. I'd be like looking at the one game he had vs Minnesota. He balled like crazy in that game. You can get the wrong idea if you just look at it from one perspective only.

Hopefully he will start shooting a midranger j instead of trying to shoot floaters that go in about 3% of the time. He gets good looks, but then puts up an ugly floater. Why doesn't he just stop and pop if he isn't trying to get to the basket. Much higher percentage shot IMO.

The kid has alot of development to get thru. He used the skills he has to dominate in high school, and play well in college... but his game isn't full as of yet. There are TONS of players that I can name that didn't have a full "game" when they entered the NBA... LBJ is one that pops in my head... the guy didn't have a mid-range game to speak of, and his 3pt shooting was probably worse that Austin's. LBJ was a better finisher because he was bigger and was able to absorb the contact whereas Austin gets put on the floor.

This is a mulligan year for him... Monty is allowing him to feel his way into the league. We can actually say this about everyone on the roster, because no one is expecting them to go out and dominate. There are some young guys playing for a spot though (X, Aminu), but Austin has a MUCH higher ceiling than those guys. let him learn, and in year #3 he'll be something special. He's still not playing the position that Monty says he'll play. I think he could be better that Westbrook.

The kid has alot of development to get thru. He used the skills he has to dominate in high school, and play well in college... but his game isn't full as of yet. There are TONS of players that I can name that didn't have a full "game" when they entered the NBA... LBJ is one that pops in my head... the guy didn't have a mid-range game to speak of, and his 3pt shooting was probably worse that Austin's. LBJ was a better finisher because he was bigger and was able to absorb the contact whereas Austin gets put on the floor.

This is a mulligan year for him... Monty is allowing him to feel his way into the league. We can actually say this about everyone on the roster, because no one is expecting them to go out and dominate. There are some young guys playing for a spot though (X, Aminu), but Austin has a MUCH higher ceiling than those guys. let him learn, and in year #3 he'll be something special. He's still not playing the position that Monty says he'll play. I think he could be better that Westbrook.

Love everything you said especially the LBJ comparison. LBJ was so big and athletic it made finishing way easier than it is for others. Rivers shows a lot of nice flashes but to much inconsistency and not enough aggressiveness. LeBron had no jumper or 3pt shot he was horrible but he made up with defense, rebounding, athleticism, strength, and setting his teammates up. I think Austin will develop into a very good defender with decent athleticism. He will be a deadly shooter and finisher once strength and confidence come his game will be tough to stop. He has shown a better job of setting people up as the season goes on. In no way is he LBJ but some things looks similar in the way each games progressed.

I've noticed that ths board picks and chooses when to use the eye test vs. stats. When is It I ok to use the eye test and when is it ok to use stats? I'm being serious when I ask this. When we compare Rivers to other rookies, I see people pulling stats out of the wazoo to prove that Rivers isn't as bad as he looks. But in this thread, it's don't worry about his stats just use the eye test. I don't get it. My take is that Rivers fails both in my opinion.

You need to use both to get a really good perspective. I use the eye test to use which stats I should dig into.

He will be good, if not just good but really good, just have patience with him. His stats would be better if he wasn't such a bad free throw shooter, I mean wow Austin lol. His stats don't tell the truth at all.

I think he's too smart to not be good. It may take him all of this year and next year to get it, but he will. He is determined and learns from his mistakes. He just hasn't figured out everything that works yet, and he'll continue to improve his skills and get stronger.

The kid has alot of development to get thru. He used the skills he has to dominate in high school, and play well in college... but his game isn't full as of yet. There are TONS of players that I can name that didn't have a full "game" when they entered the NBA... LBJ is one that pops in my head... the guy didn't have a mid-range game to speak of, and his 3pt shooting was probably worse that Austin's. LBJ was a better finisher because he was bigger and was able to absorb the contact whereas Austin gets put on the floor.

This is a mulligan year for him... Monty is allowing him to feel his way into the league. We can actually say this about everyone on the roster, because no one is expecting them to go out and dominate. There are some young guys playing for a spot though (X, Aminu), but Austin has a MUCH higher ceiling than those guys. let him learn, and in year #3 he'll be something special. He's still not playing the position that Monty says he'll play. I think he could be better that Westbrook.

Are we really comparing Austin Rivers to LBJ? How do you know his ceiling is higher than those guys? All of those guys have have shown flashes just as Rivers has. Rivers ceiling is average at best. He should have stayed in college. All I hear is that he's a gym rat, his pedigree, and he practices above and beyond the normal player and wants to get better. Well guess what, everybody feels the same way about their rooks. Rivers is what he is. To some of us, he's our future and to others he's another average guy on our roster. Here's food for thought. If he played on the Bobcats or Wizards, would anybody here want to trade for him based on anything that you've seen on or off the court?

Austin Rivers with a PER below 7

There's no reason to be behind the bush about it. Rivers is just bad right now. You all can have your reasons on why he'll improve and what not. But I have no problem acknowledging that he's just bad right now. But that doesn't mean he'll be bad forever.

Hate to be a party pooper but here's the list of players that had a PER of 7 or below in their rookie seasons: http://bit.ly/Zz8uAH

Not inspiring at all, however, that is to be expected -- a PER of 7 for an entire season is bad - like historically bad (especially at the amount of minutes that Rivers is playing). http://bit.ly/U8DSOM

But, that's a very exclusive list. If we extend the number PER to those less than 10 then it becomes less depressing. There are players who've had bad rookie seasons that eventually carved out a niche for themselves: Sefolosha (8.5) became a 3&D, Diaw (8.5) became a pass first, pass second big man (LOL but you get the point) that flourished in PHX, Brandon Rush (9) also became a 3&D, Vasquez looks to be a good backup PG.

Especially Rush -- who was one of the worst players in the league for a couple of seasons before GSW was able to find a good role for him (and before tearing his ACL).

So it's not hopeless. Also, his numbers are trending up

Defensively, he's inconsistent -- but so is the rest of the team.

He still has a long ways to go to fulfill his projections as a "star" but it's still not known at this point whether he's a bust. Too early to tell. Wait till the latter half of his 2nd year OR early 3rd year to REALLY judge whether he's a bust.

Hate to be a party pooper but here's the list of players that had a PER of 7 or below in their rookie seasons: http://bit.ly/Zz8uAH

Not inspiring at all, however, that is to be expected -- a PER of 7 for an entire season is bad - like historically bad (especially at the amount of minutes that Rivers is playing). http://bit.ly/U8DSOM

But, that's a very exclusive list. If we extend the number PER to those less than 10 then it becomes less depressing. There are players who've had bad rookie seasons that eventually carved out a niche for themselves: Sefolosha (8.5) became a 3&D, Diaw (8.5) became a pass first, pass second big man (LOL but you get the point) that flourished in PHX, Brandon Rush (9) also became a 3&D, Vasquez looks to be a good backup PG.

Especially Rush -- who was one of the worst players in the league for a couple of seasons before GSW was able to find a good role for him (and before tearing his ACL).

So it's not hopeless. Also, his numbers are trending up

Defensively, he's inconsistent -- but so is the rest of the team.

He still has a long ways to go to fulfill his projections as a "star" but it's still not known at this point whether he's a bust. Too early to tell. Wait till the latter half of his 2nd year OR early 3rd year to REALLY judge whether he's a bust.

the evidence backs up my concern...if we were fans of another team, we would not think much of him...yes, rookies aren't supposed to be good right away...but he is beyond awful at a historical rate...and guys that play this poorly do not amount to much...i think we would all be disappointed if turns out to be brandon rush

the evidence backs up my concern...if we were fans of another team, we would not think much of him...yes, rookies aren't supposed to be good right away...but he is beyond awful at a historical rate...and guys that play this poorly do not amount to much...i think we would all be disappointed if turns out to be brandon rush

Never had high hopes for Rivers. If he turns out to be a "Brandon Rush" i.e. a reliable off the bench player, then I'd be happy about the Rivers pick.

There's no denying that Rivers has been bad -- he HAS been, at a historic pace I might add. What we're basically doing is finding the good in the bad - like finding a needle in a haystack. But we're only 27 games in. I'd be more concerned if he keeps this pace up for the entire year. Which I pray will not happen.

But what choice do we have? We picked him. And drafting is as much as the pick as it is the time invested in them. The only real advantage you have is that you get to pick first -- which in theory means that you SHOULD get the better player. But rarely (if ever) do we see reality follow theory. Hence, the need to invest the time and resources into this pick - regardless if they are historically this bad.

You're painting a picture that says - 27 games into his career, Rivers is NOT going to amount into anything. Which is very foolish only because he's yet to even play all teams in the league (he's only played 19 out of a possible 29 teams). Let's wait for the season to end before throwing out such conclusive remarks, shall we??